MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Karnal, handing over the truck HYQ 4081 on supardari to respondent Sham Verma, on his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- warrants no interference in revision.

(2.) THE dispute here is between two brothers, Sham Verma and Mohan Lal. The truck HYQ 4081 is registered in the name of the petitioner Mohan Lal. On May 15, 1987, a joint application was submitted by the two brothers Sham Verma and Mohan Lal to the Secretary, Regional Transport Controller, Ambala, to transfer this vehicle from the name of Mohan Lal to that of Sham Lal. It was mentioned in this application that the truck had been sold by Mohan Lal to Sham Lal for Rs. 1,40,000/- and that this entire amount had been paid by Sham Verma to Mohan Lal. Before however, the registration of this truck could be changed from Mohan Lal to Sham Verma, a dispute arose between the two brothers with regard to it as a consequence of which the matter was referred to the police and both brothers thereafter laid a claim to it for tis release on supardari. The trial court ordered that it be given on supardari to the registered owner of the truck, namely, Mohan Lal but this was up set in revision by the Sessions Judge, by his impugned order keeping in view the fact that in the joint application not only was it that it indicated an agreement for the sale of the truck, but also that the entire sale consideration had also been paid to Mohan Lal by Sham Verma. No exception can be taken to this line of reasoning of the Sessions Judge.

(3.) THIS being so, no infirmity can be spelt out in the impugned order. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing said in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy with regard to the ownership of the truck in question. Further, the respondent is restrained from alienating the truck in question except with the permission of the competent court.